5 ms·

That’s an argument that the Tariff Act of 1930 is unconstitutional, which is a different argument.

by rayiner 1y ago

tptacek 1y ago
No, it's an argument that your interpretation of the act is (pretty clearly) unconstitutional.
- rayiner 1y ago
  I’d love to live in a world where non-delegation was such a robust doctrine. But “you can set tariffs if you find that other countries are being unfair” (paraphrasing) is a more than intelligible principle supporting Congress’s delegation.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    The case before the Court of International Trade failed on non-delegation and major questions grounds. But my point isn't that SCOTUS will affirm the lower court here (though: they will), but rather that your logic upthread doesn't hold. You said "the President makes foreign policy, not the courts". Plain category error.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage. And the court must purported to kneecap him. Of course it’s an exercise of the President’s foreign policy powers, and that’s why Congress gave the President this authority over tariffs in the 1930 act. The major questions issue shows how out on a limb this court is. There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD even applies to the president.
      - abduhl 1y ago
        >> Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage. This statement is completely speculative. There is no evidence that substantive negotiations are happening on any trade deals. >> There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD even applies to the president. The president is not a party to this suit so I don’t understand what this statement has to do with anything.
        rayiner 1y ago
        https://www.ft.com/content/aac26993-8be0-499f-bc08-9a59ed7f4aed https://www.ft.com/content/aac26993-8be0-499f-bc08-9a59ed7f4...
        abduhl 1y ago
        This is as “knee deep” as his 200 deals that were “made” a month ago. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/trump-200-trade-deals-time-interview-trade-war-tariffs-00309294 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/trump-200-trade-dea...
        rayiner 1y ago
        The FT is reporting it.
        tptacek 1y ago
        Your bigger problem here is "accomplishing foreign policy objectives using tariffs" is not an authority Congress has delegated to the executive branch, and, in fact, this cuts against his argument (that he is instead responding to an "economic emergency", despite the performance of our economy and the fact that he's responding to conditions that we have been working with for generations). You have somehow put yourself into a position of having to argue that an enumerated power of Congress actually belongs wholly to the executive so long as the executive has some constitutionally legitimizing purpose for the application of that power. I think you must be doing this for sport, just to see if you can wriggle out from the contradictions.

That’s an argument that the Tariff Act of 1930 is unconstitutional, which is a different argument.

tptacek 1y ago

No, it's an argument that your interpretation of the act is (pretty clearly) unconstitutional.

rayiner 1y ago
I’d love to live in a world where non-delegation was such a robust doctrine. But “you can set tariffs if you find that other countries are being unfair” (paraphrasing) is a more than intelligible principle supporting Congress’s delegation.
- tptacek 1y ago
  The case before the Court of International Trade failed on non-delegation and major questions grounds. But my point isn't that SCOTUS will affirm the lower court here (though: they will), but rather that your logic upthread doesn't hold. You said "the President makes foreign policy, not the courts". Plain category error.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage. And the court must purported to kneecap him. Of course it’s an exercise of the President’s foreign policy powers, and that’s why Congress gave the President this authority over tariffs in the 1930 act. The major questions issue shows how out on a limb this court is. There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD even applies to the president.
    - abduhl 1y ago
      >> Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage. This statement is completely speculative. There is no evidence that substantive negotiations are happening on any trade deals. >> There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD even applies to the president. The president is not a party to this suit so I don’t understand what this statement has to do with anything.
      - rayiner 1y ago
        https://www.ft.com/content/aac26993-8be0-499f-bc08-9a59ed7f4aed https://www.ft.com/content/aac26993-8be0-499f-bc08-9a59ed7f4...
        abduhl 1y ago
        This is as “knee deep” as his 200 deals that were “made” a month ago. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/trump-200-trade-deals-time-interview-trade-war-tariffs-00309294 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/trump-200-trade-dea...
        rayiner 1y ago
        The FT is reporting it.
        tptacek 1y ago
        Your bigger problem here is "accomplishing foreign policy objectives using tariffs" is not an authority Congress has delegated to the executive branch, and, in fact, this cuts against his argument (that he is instead responding to an "economic emergency", despite the performance of our economy and the fact that he's responding to conditions that we have been working with for generations). You have somehow put yourself into a position of having to argue that an enumerated power of Congress actually belongs wholly to the executive so long as the executive has some constitutionally legitimizing purpose for the application of that power. I think you must be doing this for sport, just to see if you can wriggle out from the contradictions.